RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 229 - directional proposal

["Chris Keller" <chris.keller@active-endpoints.com>]

Sorry for the slow response on this issue, vacations, holidays, etc.

Yes, I agree with the option 4 direction.  Allowing <compensate/> after
calls to <compensate scope="..."/>.  Also we should state in stronger terms
that no child scopes will be compensated from user defined fault and
compensation handlers unless the compensate activity is used.

If most agree on this then I'll follow-up with a spec language proposal.

- Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 10:26 PM
To: Alex Yiu
Cc: wsbpeltc; Chris Keller; Dieter Koenig1
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 229 - directional proposal

I don't see a problem with that .. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Yiu [mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 5:43 PM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc: wsbpeltc; Chris Keller; Dieter Koenig1; Alex Yiu
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 229 - directional proposal


That is correct, per my understanding. :-)


Regards,
Alex Yiu


Satish Thatte wrote:

>The idea would be to leverage the fact that calling compensate on a
>child scope a second time is a no-op?  So that default order
>compensation just rolls on over that no-op?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alex Yiu [mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:53 AM
>To: wsbpeltc
>Cc: Chris Keller; 'Dieter Koenig1'; Satish Thatte; Alex Yiu
>Subject: Issue - 229 - directional proposal
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>As mentioned in today conf call, Chris and I share a high-level 
>consensus that choice #4 in the original issue description would be a 
>good direction to close Issue 229.
>
>(Copied and paste here again)
>=========================
>after a user calls <compensate name="..."> allow them to call 
><compensate/> which will compensate all remaining child scopes in the 
>default order. This would require changing the following text at the
end
>
>of section 13.3.3: "Note that the <compensate/> activity in a fault or 
>compensation handler attached to scope S causes the default-order 
>invocation of compensation handlers for completed scopes directly
nested
>
>within S. The use of this activity can be mixed with any other 
>user-specified behavior except the explicit invocation of <compensate 
>scope="Sx"/> for scope Sx nested directly within S. Explicit invocation

>of compensation for such a scope nested within S disables the 
>availability of default-order compensation, as expected."
>=========================
>
>We would like to draft up the formal proposal for Issue 229 along that 
>direction after Dieter finishes his spec wording for Issue 207, 216,
and
>
>226.
>
>As suggested by Diane, we would like to pass the above as the direction

>proposal for this issue.
>Thanks!
>
>
>Regards,
>Alex Yiu
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
>at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
>
>  
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php